Human genes to be injected into goats, cows, and sheep

Originally posted by Alethea
Using an animal to grow body parts for people is still an abomination of crossing genetic lines. Not only is this disrespectful of nature and our
fellow creature inhabitants, this is also one way that viruses can so easily jump from species to species now. All creatures have feelings. This is
just wrong.

Who gets to decide that it's an abomination? Nature crosses genetic lines all the time. Don't say that because humans are doing it that it's
unnatural. Humans evolved on this planet just like every other creature. There is no right and wrong when it comes to genetics, there is only code.

the top geneticists in the world not too long ago were David Suzuki and his 2nd wife Tara Cullis. Both made statements about the implications of
their work...then they stopped working? There is hardly anything about this woman on google. David's Suzuki's book is still a basic text for
genetics used today. Anybody have any thoughts?

Here's a video of Clinton's casual response to Roswell...he did start talking about the implications of sequencing the human genome in 2000...What
research has been done in private??? www.youtube.com...

To say that nature crosses genetic lines all the time is erroneous. How many times does a cat mate with a dog and produce offspring.

The outrage is not based upon genetic randomization through natural or unnatural processes. It is that one species' genetic code is being crossed
with a different species genetic code in an exploitative manner. A far cry from natural evolution or natural genetic variation.

While there is certainly room for healthy debate on the morality of the issue, it does no good to try to simply the argument as one of 'the bold
charge of science for the good of man' vs 'old fashioned folksy morality'. This is a serious threshold being crossed that clearly triggers an
instinctive revulsion.

Very clearly the science behind this will involve a lot of trial and error which translates as a lot of suffering by the animals involved. Is this the
last resort of a desperate and endangered human race that has no choice but to impose our will on these creatures, or is it just greed?

Originally posted by David_Reale
So, if we slaughter these animals afterwards and eat them...does that make us cannibals?

That's an interesting observation. However, since animals and humans already share most of the same genetic code and since animals and humans both
have emotions and feelings, wouldn't that already mean that we are cannibals?

Animals also have reasoning capabilities; though some may say this is innate and instinct, that is only to a degree. An animal still must make
conscious decisions, therefore every action cannot simply be dismissed as instinct. If this were so, animals would not make mistakes. They would not
attempt to play with or eat buffo frogs and skinks.

Animals reason and make mistakes, just as humans do. How closely are we linked both in behavior and genetic code? These are our planetary companions.

The "creators" are justifying these horrors and are attempting to sedate the masses with phrases like "beneficial to humanity" and
"eco-friendly". As an example, the mouse/pig hybrid, manipulatively named "enviropig" was reputedly created to decrease the amount of phosphorus
that is abundant in a normal pig's excretment.

And the best part about this Mystery Meat is that you won't even know it!

According to the NationalExpositor:
"The Canadian government is on the verge of approving the introduction of extremely bizarre genetically modified pigs into the Canadian food
supply.....So soon millions of Canadians will be eating meat from mouse/pig hybrid creatures and most of them will not even realize it."

The problem is that we know too litlle about those things we have the technical capable to accomplish. We can do more than what we can understand.
If that isn't enough to scary the crap out of you, you've got a problem!

Humans are the only species that we know of that can selectively bend the natural laws in these matters. That something is possible does not mean we
have given the ramifications of making it so adequate consideration. I think history speaks to the dangers and shows the scars of many runaway
technologies. Am I against progress and technology? I would say not but I have yet to suffer the consequences personally. Or at least so I think. When
we look at the possible upsides of what is being promoted, how much of that is directly related to correcting problems occurring from past
technological advances?

I only wonder the consequences you guys are talking about. some things in science are controversial because people dont know of the power but its
always beneficial. this is just genetics in its infancy and these things are neccesary to progress. there are no boundries in science that we have to
abide to the only thing that will come with this is the best for mankind cause this can have a better control of how we want to be and is one of the
best technologies we can have as a species and you people should be happy that your living in the time that it will be accessible.

Genetic experiments have been on-going forever. When it applied to plants, people were thrilled. Roses were made larger, thornless, and some displayed
brilliant color combinations that were "new". Sometimes, though, it was at the sacrifice of some other quality...like the disappearance of scent.

It was only a matter of time in coming to fruition of playing with more combinations of human genetics spliced with animals. This has probably gone on
longer than we know; it has only been in the last few years that we have been apprised of some of these new creations.

A Canadian company, Nexia, has created goats that are part spider. The goats produce the spider silk protein in their milk. It is then collected and
processed and spun into fibers that are stronger than Kevlar and stronger than steel. Plans are to use this substance for industrial and military
applications.

It was announced two years ago that human genes would be spliced into that of pigs in order to grow organs for transplants. Scientists believe that if
pigs are "human enough" that organs transplanted from them will not be rejected. news.scotsman.com...

Who hasn't seen the photo of a mouse with an ear growing out of it's back, or the glow-in-the-dark genetically modified cats?

Nevertheless, in going deeper down the Rabbit Hole....this is another event to divide people into camps. Some will see it as progress, others will see
it as abomination. Nothing we say here will stop what has already been set in motion. We should all realize that the double headed bird plays both
sides. But to what purpose?

An ancient scroll called the Book of Jasher refers to a time when "sons of men took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the fields, and the
fowl of the air and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other".

Will our future be a return to the past? Is life on this planet a continual cycle that is repeated over and over? www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by AletheaYour statement appears inaccurate without having valid documentation.

It's called sex, we do it too. Your library probably have quite a few books on the subject. Heck, try searching for the word on Google

Originally posted by LiquidLight
Yes, it is unnatural. When the integrity is compromised, a fail results.

I don't find it unnatural, because I actually understand what is going on with genetics. You obviously haven't had any education on the subject,
except for your own ideas and highly questionable sites you found on the web.

Go to your library and study the subject. You'll maybe even learn something.

Originally posted by LiquidLight
You are stating your own opinion as being a fact.

Evolution is a fact. Denying the overwhelming amounts of evidence is ignorance at heart.

Originally posted by The Broadcaste
To say that nature crosses genetic lines all the time is erroneous. How many times does a cat mate with a dog and produce offspring.

They don't, and it is quite easy to explain on a genetic level why no offspring is achieved.

The outrage is not based upon genetic randomization through natural or unnatural processes. It is that one species' genetic code is being
crossed with a different species genetic code in an exploitative manner. A far cry from natural evolution or natural genetic variation.

Not really. Speciation is a human concept and certainly not something that nature speaks about, and that is something many people forget in these
discussions. At cellular level we are all extremely alike, and just because some animals evolved feathers, and others fur, doesn't mean they are form
different worlds. Again, speciation is a human concept. There are *many* examples of gradients of species where there is overlapping mating between
subspecies, while the far ends of the gradients are incapable of producing live offspring. Just go read a book on evolution, it is explained why quite
nicely with several examples.

Also, to get this discussion back on track - Many people in here seem to take the name of the OP's article literally. They don't "inject genes",
and have stuff happen. They genetically engineer zygotes of the species in question, and have them grow up to a full individual. So it is not like
getting a vacination of some sort.

Yes we are all the same at the cellular level even in the brain but ours is more calculable and i shear do love those whales. but when you have to
include humans as animals in this day and age some people still dont and its just flabbergasting.

No, it's not right at all. That's one creepy looking hog. Just imagine a fuzzy football. Apparently though the animal exists as described. It is
listed and the history of the breed described in Wiki and a number of other pig related sites. I suspect the gene manipulating folks would skip this
insulated pig step and go straight for a self cooking ham.

Not sure if my first thought is the same as yours....it was "Pigs in a Blanket".

My second thought was this:

In 168 B.C.E. or 169 B.C.E. Antiochus marched to Jerusalem, slew Jason (last of the Zadokite High Priests) and dedicated the Temple to Zeus, erecting
an image of Zeus in his own likeness on the altar, and, according to some sources, sacrificed a pig in the Temple. This is known to Jews as the
'great desecration' or 'abomination of desecration' (from Daniel 11: 31 & 12: 11)

Perhaps it was a sheep-pig, looking enough like a sheep to be smuggled in to the Temple with a bag on it's head.

Putting genes from other organisms into another is quite common. The gene doesn't represent anything human. It is simply a chain of sugars and
phosphates. These nucleotides (ACGT or U if they use RNA) are just a random order created by chance and selection to produce through transcription a
protein.

Without this gene translocation has been done for years and modern biotechnology, biology, medicine, agriculture, and science would not be here today.

Most likely this milk gene modification in livestock is to produce a milk more similar to human milk or produce antibodies that would either be
beneficial to humans or the livestock. Early baby formulas contained the right amount of fats, proteins, and sugars as milk. However it did not
contain the right ones and the babies who tested and drank it died from malnourishment.

This is a simple procedure taking where they desire the cow to produce a certain protein or produce certain organic compounds (if multiple genes are
introduced).

They characterized much of the human nervous system using genes and proteins isolated from donkeys, rats, and other organisms. Using a human DNA
sequence in no way represents the blending of two seperate genomes(if such were ever to occur the product could not survive and lack essential
mechanisms of survival...so your quite safe in that respect). You already eat produce and meat with RNA and DNA sequences from numerous other
organisms in it. How is it that this is any different.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.